Case Law Details
Mr. Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appreciating the material on record it can be observed that the Tax Authorities have not doubted the assertion of the Assessee that the father in law was resident of Canada or he held land. When this fact is admitted, the Revenue needed to conduct some enquiry and collect material to rebut the claim of the Assessee. Which was not done. However, the ld CIT(A) has discredited the claim on the reason that no evidence whatsoever has been brought which could relate the cash to the agricultural income of the father in law. He failed to appreciate that the deposit relates back to year 2001-02 and the assessment was initiated in 2015. No prudent man could be expected to keep record of sale proceeds of such small amount of Rs 20,000/. Presumption is of truthfulness of a claim made before an authority when a false claim gives rise to penal action. So, claim of Assessee that he held source was agricultural income and he held it as custodian deserved to be allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05.09.2016 of Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. „FAA’) in appeal No. 389/15-16 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 28.01.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as „the Act’) by the ld. AO, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
